[TheWastedYears]

Quite frankly, I'm surprised that we haven't seen a RIM vs. NTP lawsuit for going back on the terms of settlement.

[crofox]

there was no settlement. they tried to settle for 450M but it fell apart, thus, the continuing litigation.

[Dawg]

RIM actually agreed to pay the money but NTP didnt want the money they want more

[TheWastedYears]

I've never liked the fact that service MUST go through a 3rd party. That was my main reservation about Blackberries since Day #1.

I would much prefer devices that connect through my server. That way, I have some level of control of my users' services.

[jibi]

Originally Posted by FlemmingRiis

-hmm. that was the last post on the forum before it crashed. *sigh*

dont think the board crashed , from here it looked like the zone expired 24 hours ahead of its time, i could resolve it anyways but the expire wasnt until today.

oh well

nah, Tom had hardware issues - motherboard.

[jibi]

Dawg, the DOD will not be affected by the injunction, as the U.S. Government is excused from any sanctions.

TWY, I'd prefer it go through RIM's network than worrying about having to go through 10 different parties to troubleshoot a simply connectivity issue, not to mention ease of configuration - I'm sure that connecting a secure method to a carrier would be next to complicated-as-hell... we'll see here shortly come time for Exchange 2003 SP2.

For the workaround articles:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...NTP+workaround

[stonent]

I can't seem to see what this workaround entails. Are they switching to PULL e-mail?

[FlemmingRiis]

Originally Posted by jibi

nah, Tom had hardware issues - motherboard.

ok zone was just gone here must be my dns providers thats nuts then

[mikealdo]

Originally Posted by NJBlackBerry

If NTP (blood suckers) shut down RIM (the good guys <sic>), then they get NOTHING. NTP does not make a competing product. They don't make anything. They are simply trying to extort more money from RIM. They agreed to $400mm US (which I believe is two trillion Canadian dollars) but want more.

There. I have pissed off lawyers, NTP fans, Good fans and Canadians in one paragraph.

Damn, I'm good

You...your good...you gotta gift my friend!!

[NJBlackBerry]

And I like Tony Bennett.

You.. You..

[jibi]

Here's probably the best article I've read on the subject...

Waterloo (Ontario) - After losing a petition last Friday in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) to have its case reheard, and potentially a decision against it overturned, Research in Motion, suspended trading of its shares on the NASDAQ exchange for three hours today. Traders, customers, and RIM itself found themselves faced with the very real ramifications of the company losing the rights to offer mobile e-mail service in the US.

It is a landmark patent case in a landscape that is now pock-marked with landmarks: What makes it both unusual and important are the following factors:

RIM is a Canadian company. Typically, US patent law has not extended towards companies headquartered outside US boundaries, or that conduct most of their business there. But last December, the CAFC ruled that a company that deploys a technology such that its "control and beneficial use" lie within US boundaries, is subject to US patent law. Should RIM eventually lose this battle, many overseas companies that develop technology primarily for US markets, may find themselves the subjects of US-based litigation.

NTP, the plaintiff, is not a manufacturer. It is simply a holder of patents, whose revenue is earned by the licensing of patented technology to other companies. NTP claims that RIM infringed upon not just a few, but perhaps as many as several hundred separate patents.

This case distinguishes between two aspects of technology: namely, systems and methods. In determining its opinion two months ago in favor of NTP's arguments, the CAFC stated that a "method" can only be considered as falling under US protection if each of the steps involved in that method were performed under US boundaries. RIM argued that its technology constituted such a method; but the CAFC determined that it was instead a "system," which can fall under US law if it is both controlled and operated in the US. Although RIM's financial base is in Canada, both the control and operation of its American subsidiaries fall within American borders.

This case was supposedly settled on 16 March, with RIM agreeing to pay NTP $450 million, supposedly for a permanent license to BlackBerry technology, with NTP agreeing to stop pursuing RIM. Both sides issued press releases hailing the agreement. But later, NTP claimed that the term sheet on which the agreement was written - allegedly a handwritten list on one-half sheet of paper, which has not been made public - was insufficient to represent a complete agreement. So RIM took NTP back to court in June, in an attempt to win the CAFC's backing of the term sheet as a legal agreement. The final decision on this matter could have some bearing on what protocols are necessary for crafting a legally binding settlement agreement using a mere paper and pencil.

NTP's patent claims have already been initially rejected by the US Patent Office, for what is called a "first office action." But initial rejection, under current US patent law, is almost always the first course of action taken by the Patent Office once it finds significant evidence of prior art - evidence of the claimed work already in existence. NTP was given time to issue its response to the Patent Office's rejection, which would enable the claim to undergo re-examination; and NTP has done so. At the same time, almost in parallel, NTP's case against RIM was under review by the CAFC, which could not legally interpret the initial rejection as a final rejection, and thus still considers NTP's claims, for now, at least arguable. If NTP's claims are, at last, given final rejection by the Patent Office, NTP would be given a chance to appeal the ruling to an administrative board, and perhaps from there, to the CAFC once again.

Possible changes to federal patent law could affect the outcome. Today, NTP is seeking an injunction against RIM, which would prevent it from operating its "system" in the US. Last Friday's CAFC decision effectively remands the case to District Court, which already issued the injunction, although that injunction was stayed pending RIM's appeal to the CAFC. The District Court could reaffirm the injunction. However, in the meantime, RIM has 90 days to appeal the CAFC's decision to the US Supreme Court; and then NTP would be given 30 days to respond in turn. During that time, proceedings in the US House of Representatives could very well change US patent law, rendering NTP's injunction void. Under debate at the present time is the following suggested language, for amendment to what will probably be the Patent Reform Act of 2005:

In determining equity, the court shall consider the fairness of the remedy in light of all the facts and the relevant interests of the parties associated with the invention. Unless the injunction is entered pursuant to a nonappealable judgment of infringement, a court shall stay the injunction pending an appeal upon an affirmative showing that the stay would not result in irreparable harm to the owner of the patent and that the balance of hardships from the stay does not favor the owner of the patent.
In other words, if RIM could show that an injunction against it would force it to cease doing business everywhere in the world, including Canada, then such an injunction could probably be declared invalid, and no grandfather clause could apply to say otherwise.

Dennis Crouch, a patent attorney with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, who runs the popular patent law blog Patently-O, advised TG Daily for this report. We asked Crouch if the potential changes in US patent law could make it less possible for a non-manufacturer to file patents for technologies with the sole intent of defending those claims in court - what some call "malicious patenting." "A patent is a legal instrument that gives you the right to sue somebody for patent infringement," Crouch told TG Daily. "Although when people file a patent, they don't necessarily intend to sue anyone else, that is the ultimate power of the patent. If you can't sue someone for infringing, there's no reason for people to pay a license fee. The courts don't see it as something done in bad faith if you do it to enforce your patent."

If the Patent Reform Act passes before the Supreme Court decides whether it will hear the case - which Crouch believes it will decline to hear - he believes rather than an injunction, at worst, RIM may be forced to pay NTP a license fee...which it was willing to do earlier this year anyway. "Most likely, if the injunction is not yet issued and the law passed," Crouch said, "then RIM would be able to fall under the new law." But he also believes, in the wake of other pending business before Congress, such as judicial nominees and hurricane relief, "it's unlikely at this point that that provision in particular will get passed this year."

Yet in the end, though, Crouch stated, "I believe there is very little chance that there will be an injunction. The reason is because it would simply kill RIM's business. They're going to do whatever they can to ensure an injunction will not issue." One option would be a higher price than the $450 million RIM was willing to pay.

[dcfroe]

Thanks good info

[tzarcone]

Originally Posted by Dawg

yes but if its going to cut off to all US then the DOD is the US so one for all all for one. I am looking onto another phone just incase at least thats what i am telling my wife its for the new nextel i930 is the shizzle

I just ordered the I930 figured get out now and they will give back 100 for the BB. Should have the new phone in a few days....Can even use a sd wifi card and do voip, or get a bluetooth cd card and have FULL bluetooth on it as well. It will synch up with exchange or outlook so even better like having a BES only cheaper.

[teamcrn]

good luck with no push email... and goodluck with windows.. my friend picked his up tuesday and its hella slow. and the keyboard is that t9 crap..no thanks

[tzarcone]

Originally Posted by teamcrn

good luck with no push email... and goodluck with windows.. my friend picked his up tuesday and its hella slow. and the keyboard is that t9 crap..no thanks

I actually run a Groupwise server for my email so would have to do that active synch, but from what I can tell you can have the PC push the email as it is received so it would still be pushed not pulled. With an exchange server it would be synching that also. Meaning now when I delete from phone I delete from desktop as well. Right now no BES so delete from BB than go home and delete same messages from desktop.

Also saw they have a keyboard that can clip on just like the bb keyboard.
If it slow that will suck but if not VOIP, Network access, storage, MP3, synching mail and contacts with desktop, camera, video, and full bluetooth with sd card. Might have to get a few sd cards for VOIP, and bluetooth but than would have it all in one place.

[katieraine]

Originally Posted by MobileRC

If they successfully cut off American BB users I wonder how quickly you would see lawsuits and/or firebombings against NTP. I know if I had a company in the states that relied heavily on BB and with ROI could show the losses I would see if I lost BB, I wouldn't hesitate to look into suing NTP. If a lady stupid enough to spill hot coffee on herself then claim she didnt know it was hot and won a lawsuit against mcdicks then I dont think it would be the craziest idea.

I know this is nit-picking, but you are seriously mis-informed about the facts of this case. You need to do a little research before you continue spreading mis-information, but since you didn't, I'll put a few McFacts here:

McFact No. 1: For years, McDonald's had known they had a problem with the way they make their coffee - that their coffee was served much hotter (at least 20 degrees more so) than at other restaurants. Before trial, McDonald's gave the opposing lawyer its operations and training manual, which says its coffee must be brewed at 195 to 205 degrees and held at 180 to 190 degrees for optimal taste. You understand that 205 degrees (F) is just 7 degrees shy of boiling, right?

McFact No. 2: McDonald's knew its coffee sometimes caused serious injuries - more than 700 incidents of scalding coffee burns in the past decade have been settled by the Corporation - and yet they never so much as consulted a burn expert regarding the issue.

McFact No. 3: The woman involved in this infamous case suffered very serious injuries - third degree burns on her groin, thighs and buttocks that required skin grafts and a seven-day hospital stay. If you don't know what a 3rd degree burn is, perhaps you should use images.google.com and find out. Imagine that on your hoo-hah.

McFact No. 4: The woman, an 81-year old former department store clerk who had never before filed suit against anyone, said she wouldn't have brought the lawsuit against McDonald's had the Corporation not dismissed her request for compensation for medical bills.

McFact No. 5: A McDonald's quality assurance manager testified in the case that the Corporation was aware of the risk of serving dangerously hot coffee and had no plans to either turn down the heat or to post warning about the possibility of severe burns, even though most customers wouldn't think it was possible.

McFact No. 6: After careful deliberation, the jury found McDonald's was liable because the facts were overwhelmingly against the company. When it came to the punitive damages, the jury found that McDonald's had engaged in willful, reckless, malicious, or wanton conduct, and rendered a punitive damage award of 2.7 million dollars. (The equivalent of just two days of coffee sales, McDonalds Corporation generates revenues in excess of 1.3 million dollars daily from the sale of its coffee, selling 1 billion cups each year.)

McFact No. 7: On appeal, a judge lowered the award to $480,000, a fact not widely publicized in the media.

McFact No. 8: A report in Liability Week, September 29, 1997, indicated that Kathleen Gilliam, 73, suffered first degree burns when a cup of coffee spilled onto her lap. Reports also indicate that McDonald's consistently keeps its coffee at 185 degrees, still approximately 20 degrees hotter than at other restaurants. Third degree burns occur at this temperature in just two to seven seconds, requiring skin grafting, debridement and whirlpool treatments that cost tens of thousands of dollars and result in permanent disfigurement, extreme pain and disability to the victims for many months, and in some cases, years.

McFact No. 9: Ms. Liebeck was not driving. The car was not moving. She was an 81 year old passenger in her nephews car. They stopped at McD's for breakfast, got their order to go and parked in a spot to have breakfast. She held the cup between her thighs while taking the top off the coffee, she was elderly and needed some leverage.

McFact No. 10: McDonalds lawyers did not take the humanity of the situation into consideration. They actually insinuated that because Ms. Liebeck was 81 years old, she wasn't going to be using her genitals for anything other than bodily functions and therefore was not entitled to any monetary compensation.


That's enough of my rant. Please continue.

[jibi]

while i do agree with most points, should i be allowed to sue mcdonalds (or any other place that sells coffee) for the loss of my tastebuds for a few days due to the effects of a hot liquid voluntarily poured over my tongue? as you said, mcdonalds pours over 1 billion cups of coffee a year, and i myself will probably account for atleast 40 of those cups... i have never burned a hole or chunk of skin out of my tongue, mouth or throat - even on cups that were freshly made (afterall, i won't have it any other way). this dates back over a decade. perhaps the local mickey dee's haven't been following their corporate guidelines, right? or maybe i, and every other person i know, have super tongues, eh?

i do feel sorry for that lady and the pain she went through, however infant and adolescent and even on into adulthood lessons have taught us that touching hot things is a big no-no - i remember the first time i ever learned my lesson about a hot oven/stove as well as my first encounters with that mythical thing called fire. no one i've known in my entire life have thought that traditional wake-me-up-in-the-morning coffee is supposed to be anywhere near the hemisphere of frigid. your approach (and googled facts) are not those of common sense but rather those of someone who would rather looks past the lack of common sense from a non-insured elderly woman (not to say that constant mentioning of this case is not an agenda of big corporations, either - that's obvious as well).

the only points i even look at - not the third degree burns, as those were caused by the elderly woman carelessly spilling a hot liquid on herself - is the temperatures of the coffee. to be honest, i have no idea what temperature i keep my coffee. however, i will say that if McDonald's is selling 1 billion cups of coffee per year, and considering that i myself actually have a liking for it despite not liking coffee, then they must be doing something right with their fairly generic recipe... customer service is a key to a lot of businesses and it rarely is seen in the fast food industry, or maybe its in the behind-the-scenes decisions (such as the thought that people actually like hot coffee in the mornings) that are simply overlooked because its of its minute scale when compared to the less than 0.0001% (or less) injury caused to an elderly old woman and the inability to take the lid off a cup without using two legs and two hands (if she was missing an arm or a hand, then i'd have more sympathy)...

...just my opinion.

[KonTiki]

The moral of the story here , if you follow the Mickey Dee's analogy, is if RIM sells coffee, and NTP gets burned, they can sue RIM.

Even "if" a judge reduces the award, RIM can keep on selling coffee.

Damn, and I do like the coffee.

So NTP take your pound of flesh (I mean coffee) enjoy it, and let everyone else enjoy theirs, and the bottom line is always this "caveat emptor". Need I say more . . .

[Dawg]

i like my coffee hot and if I spill it on my self its my fault

[jibi]

okay, back to the RIM-NTP lawsuit, the news media is NOT reporting the entire facts on the case - even misconstruing some things. the second article i posted states some of the First Action Office of the USPTO percentages, however things changed within that office to include a panel of three senior patent examiners in the initial phase of re-examinations of patents - this is the same process used in the Final Action Office of the USPTO when issuing the final actions. in other words, in the past if 60% patents that were denied by the First Action Office were later modified slightly and reissued, then these days that number would be significantly lower. basically, the USPTO arguments are VERY much valid right now.

also, when/if this goes back to a lower court, they will then have to file a new injunction and new hearings will proceed based on the new facts and findings in the case that have been discovered/made over the last 3 years since it first went to trial.

anyhow, the case is a long way from being over and i believe we'll have a bright future ahead of us for our services.